Burton MacKenzie

In Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, a story is in the news about a Neo-nazi couple who have had their children taken away from them by the government.

I believe myself to be a pacifist, but people like neo-nazis just make me feel like kneeing them in the nuts for their stupid hatred of others. But unless there are other mitigating factors of actual demonstrable harm to the children, we should not remove children from non-violent familial homes, regardless of what we think of their fucked up views. If I want to teach my children fairy tales about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Jesus, Superman, or Thor, claiming them to be real, it is my prerogative. If they want to teach whatever stupid ideas nazis have, that is their right, too. If it is any other way, that means the government is claiming that they have the final authority on what parents are allowed to teach their children. I cannot believe that that is a power government should have. That is a very dangerous power. You should never give a benevolent government a power that could be abused by a crooked one that comes after them. (--attribute help)

From the globe and mail (argubly Canada's national newspaper),

"According to reports in the Winnipeg Free Press, which has obtained a case summary, the protection agency was concerned about drug and alcohol use in the home, about the seven-year-old missing 39 days of school because, she said, her parents liked to sleep in, and especially about the neo-Nazi views."

Regardless of what else they may have found at the scene, the Canadian Government CFS apparently used beliefs as the main pretext for searching the home.

From the winnipeg free press (Winnipeg's largest newspaper),

Gus Boetzkes, vice-president of the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties, said even if a parent's beliefs are "odious," the association does not support the removal of kids from homes based on parents' non-mainstream views.

I'm sure we've all read the following:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;"

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

And finally a few words from a redditor on a totally different topic:

"It's like when Larry Flint said (in the movie at least) "if the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you."; If the boss of the organized crime deserve to have is rights respected then everybody does."

Anyway, there better be some fucking scandalous drugs involved. At least we can justify the means by the end. Having to agree on a principle with a nazi, a gay bashing "conservative Christian activist'', a Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties VP, and an ethics professor all at once is giving me a very distrubing taste in my mouth.

Burton MacKenZie www.burtonmackenzie.com